Population
and the American Future

The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and
the American Future

One of the most serious challenges to human
destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population.
Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for
despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now
begin our work in an appropriate manner, and if we continue to devote a
considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem, then mankind will
be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long
march of civilization.

I have the honor to transmit
for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and
recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American
Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.

After two years of
concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial
benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather
that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would
contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have
looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued
population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does
the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.

The recommendations offered
by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the
causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the
processes of population movement, maximizing information about human
reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to
avoid unwanted fertility.

To these ends we offer this
report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious
consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future
generations.

This report represents the
official views of the Commission, particularly as to the listed
recommendations. Clearly, in the case of a Commission with such diverse
membership, not every Commissioner subscribes in detail to every suggestion or
statement of policy.

Support Staff

Production
Staff

Bea Garcia

Eugenia Harrison

Bea Rodgers

James Sumiel

Margell Yep

Because he
deepened our conviction that each individual has a unique contribution to make
to the dignity and worth of all mankind, the Commission and staff dedicate this
report to the memory of our colleague, staff member, and friend

For the first time in the
history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a
Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have
upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President
Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the
last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s
response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year
2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to
examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the
United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact
that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our
resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can
best cope with that impact.

In our Interim Report a year
ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate
policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of
population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population
growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied
and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more
difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning
and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the
desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.

Since then, the Commission and
staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the
nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard
from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met
with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that
population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states
in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the
racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our
recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which
this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of
this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include
a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women
among their members, including congressional representatives, and the
commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities,
youth, and women.

We offer this report in the
hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious
consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations
throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future
generations.

In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that
progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact,
population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If
that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem
confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were
larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized;
others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has
concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of
the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two
years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits
would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.

The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses.
It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either
of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on
the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is
accurate nor even helpful.

It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the
pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it
a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural
resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of
living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and
distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as
the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere,
with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the
instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the
productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s
life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal
pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to
the children involved.

Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks
the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention
and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children
born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a
powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not
easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future
generations.

There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with
the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment,
education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life,
governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular
life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental
deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international
situation—then population is part of that crisis.

Although population change touches all of these areas of our national
life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by
demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social,
economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires
that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex
discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental
deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted
countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven
with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these
problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel
population growth.

Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what
people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation
stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth
will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United
States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our
answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The
answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.

The United States today is characterized by low population density,
considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central
cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country,
or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper
balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the
other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.

Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other
way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population
questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on
population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act
responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants,
given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate
peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing
countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it
is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide
search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our
numbers.

A
Diversity of Views

Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone,
but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals
cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who
also “want in.”

One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy
recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should
concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather
than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens
that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and
shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense
of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual
potentialities.

But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on
their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people
generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the
relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the
“population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American
society.

Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished.
These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the
general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different
perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we
shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.

The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing
growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large
numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the
number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an
effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of
fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the
sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the
interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general
society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential
conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom
from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization
of population.

Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context
without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of
societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for
government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to
decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge;
then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.

Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of
education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any
serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would
be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on
knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of
life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual
and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the
understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.

The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but
stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the
reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional
American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some
minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to
opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to
millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant
undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when
inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and
shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not
taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling
reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In
addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of
freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and
equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its
stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both
for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view,
the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one,
of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.

The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological
framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of
man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the
operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge
and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For
the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately
connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political,
economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our
existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic
recasting of American values.

The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence
are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on
earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their
ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture,
particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to
alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved
the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce,
consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather
than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora
and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human
community.

This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial
organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a
uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values.
Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency,
acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same
values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is
losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human
existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings.
The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental
cause of present human conditions.

It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political
system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and
better fertility control information and services will solve our population
problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of
man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view,
nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of
a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other
than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic,
will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with
nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and
that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our
individual humanity.

The Immediate Goal

These three views reflect
different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different
assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different
perceptions of the critical values at stake.

Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold
ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific
population policies to be selected?

As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the
priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or
lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy
findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the
primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right
directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*

Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country:
to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the
individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality
rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already
moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The
time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable:
What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the
family.

In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the
revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which
has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique,
demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive
behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need
reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population
policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts,
better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals
may control their own fertility.

As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities
of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the
problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is
certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the
demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and
the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of
rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of
the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what
their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.

Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full
consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human
freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social
justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such
values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character,
and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the
part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in
considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to
guide population growth into the American future.

A separate statement by Commissioner James S.
Rummonds appears on page 164.

For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means,
explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to
sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of
affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should
receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be
able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, no generation
needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which
they will be found.